Julian Assange Emerges to Confirm Russia Was NOT the Source of DNC/Podesta Leaks

Breaking: Assange Emerges to Confirm Russia Was NOT the Source of DNC/Podesta Leaks

In an interview
with Sean Hannity on Thursday, founder Julian Assange officially and
definitively declared Russia did not provide hacked documents to
Wikileaks — directly contradicting nebulous intelligence reports from
unknown officials with the CIA.

“Our source is not the Russian government,” Assange told Hannity.

“In other words, let me be clear,” Hannity asked, “Russia did not give you the Podesta documents, or anything from the DNC?”

“That’s correct,” Assange replied.

Wikileaks has been accused by the
U.S. government of working in some sort of tandem with Russian state
actors during the presidential election to hack Democratic Party
organizations and provide damaging information about Hillary Clinton in
order to sway the election in favor of Donald Trump.

Recently, and utterly absurdly, the
Obama administration went so far as to accuse Russian President Vladimir
Putin of being personally involved in this putative hacking — and that
Trump had been aware of the effort since its supposed inception.

Despite innumerable attempts by
Trump, Russian officials, and Putin to denounce those claims as
completely invalid, the controversy has continued to rage and has driven
a deepening cleft in the intelligence community.

One criticism of Wikileaks publishing
of the documents and emails has been its seeming lopsided disclosing of
information only damaging to the Democratic establishment — and
seemingly nothing of the same about the Republican Party.

Asked to confirm whether or not
Wikileaks had received hacked information from the Republican National
Committee, Assange explained,

“We received about three pages of information to do with the RNC and Trump, and … but it was already public somewhere else.”

Hannity asked for the Wikileaks
founder’s thoughts on claims from the CIA that Russian officials had
actively and purposefully influenced the election, Assange said:

“Well, I think it’s very
interesting. The key quote … is from James Clapper, on the 17th of
November — James Clapper is the DNI, the Director of National
Intelligence, who oversees all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies — and so
his statement
is (this is made to the House Intelligence Committee) ‘as far as the
Wikileaks connection, the evidence is not strong, and we don’t have a
good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may
have been provided. We don’t have good insight into that.’”

Assange also noted, without being
prompted to the topic, that the ongoing effort to ‘flip’ electors away
from Trump toward Clinton marks a dangerous precedent, as future
administrations could employ the same method to stay in power after
being voted out.

“Our publications,” Assange continued, “did
make a significant influence during the elections — lots and lots of
Americans talked them up, read them, analyzed them, forwarded them to
each other. It was the most discussed topic, according to Facebook,
throughout October.

“Then you have U.S. intelligence
saying they don’t know how we got our stuff or when we got it, and us
saying, we didn’t get it from a State. Then, there’s hacking of various
systems that has occurred — a leading way to get intelligence: the
Israelis do it, the Russians do it, the Chinese do it, the French do it,
every year, every election cycle, to understand what policies are. So
it’s no surprise at all that there’s record of Russians or others
hacking all of these systems.”

In order to clarify definitively the
information provided to Wikileaks did not come from any official State
actor, Assange explained the publishing outlet did not want to provide
any revealing details, but reiterated he had to in order to maintain the
integrity of the leaks and combat distracting criticism.

“Here, in order to prevent a distraction attack against our publications,” Assange asserted, “we’ve
had to come out and say, ‘no, it’s not a State party, stop trying to
distract in that way, and pay attention to the content of the
publications.’”

Hannity said, “So, in other words, when you say State party, it wasn’t another State — like Russia, or some other country?”

“Correct.”

Noting Wikileaks, over the course of 10 years, has never been proven wrong, “not one single time,”
Hannity asked whether Assange believes President Obama knows the source
for Wikileaks was not Russia — and is only advancing the narrative for
political reasons to damage Trump — he replied:

“Yes. It’s clear, if you look at
the statements by James Clapper, you’ll see an earlier statement that
U.S. intelligence is not aware of when we received material or how, it’s
pretty clear that he must be getting those briefings as well, if the
public is getting them. So, there’s a deliberate attempt to conflate …
as far as the public is concerned, the only interesting thing that
happened is that Wikileaks published a number of types of different
information — the DNC publications, John Podesta’s, and the Clinton
emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. So, that’s what’s
interesting to the public.”

Discussing the idea the mainstream,
corporate press has been manipulating the narrative to blame Wikileaks
for, essentially, the content of published information, Assange said
that while that was certainly the case, the mainstream press are now
“old media” — and had only played the role of “paper tiger” this election season.

Assange also noted the press had
repeatedly lectured the American public on behalf of Clinton — in part,
by belittling Trump supporters — which “really
turned people off. Because it seemed like those people, who already had
a lot of social power, were telling you what to do, and so you wanted
to do the opposite.”

But on the topic of the various leaks
published by Wikileaks and others, Assange noted that some of the
unknowns — like DC Leaks and Guccifer 2.0 — bore nearly too many
characteristics reminiscent of the Russians. As if they were meant to
appear Russian by another entity deeming it important to make the
connection.

Perhaps one of the other most
noteworthy items in Hannity’s interview had to do with another piece of
disinformation — which has unfortunately haunted Wikileaks for some
time.

Asked whether Wikileaks would have
published comparable information if it had concerned Trump rather than
Clinton, Assange stated without hesitation, “Absolutely. Yeah, no problem doing that at all.”

So, while Julian Assange remains a
political prisoner under asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, he
felt the need imperative enough to come forward — stepping out of
Wikileaks’ comfort zone to do so — and slay all the absurd U.S.
government propaganda touting election interference by Russian State
officials.

It wasn’t Russia. It never was. This
is a pure attempt by the Democratic establishment to deflect fallout
from the publication of legitimately abhorrent information. The Russians
Did It is a puerile attempt to conflate good, investigative, and
thorough journalism by alternative media outlets and Wikileaks with a
new Red Scare and war on dissent, disguised as a battle against ‘fake
news.’But fake news doesn’t get any less true than the current blame of Russia for all the Democrats’ woes.